Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

How does one tell which effects simply counteract gravity by applying stronger force in the opposite direction, like burning fuel in an accelerating rocket versus, for example, actually affecting whatsoever the Nature of "gravity" itself actually is? Mr. Hutchinson left a chaotic mess.

"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

"John Hutchison (born October 19, 1945) is a Canadian self-proclaimed inventor who claims to have discovered, and promptly forgotten, the secrets of levitation, free energy, and how to make certain metals vanish."

Lol. Shame he had such a bad memory and couldn't remember how he did these things... or dare I say it, maybe he was just another con man like the rest of the free energy crew.

Really, you guys need to raise your standards of what you will believe or accept as evidence.

AbstractAbout a dozen measurements of Newton's gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors. We find that these values for G are oscillatory in nature, with a period of $P = 5.899 \pm 0.062\ \text{yr}$ , an amplitude of $(1.619 \pm 0.103) \times 10^{-14}\ \text{m}^3\ \text{kg}^{-1}\ \text{s}^{-2}$ , and mean-value crossings in 1994 and 1997. However, we do not suggest that G is actually varying by this much, this quickly, but instead that something in the measurement process varies. Of other recently reported results, to the best of our knowledge, the only measurement with the same period and phase is the Length of Day (LOD —defined as a frequency measurement such that a positive increase in LOD values means slower Earth rotation rates and therefore longer days). The aforementioned period is also about half of a solar activity cycle, but the correlation is far less convincing. The 5.9 year periodic signal in LOD has previously been interpreted as due to fluid core motions and inner-core coupling. We report the G/LOD correlation, whose statistical significance is 0.99764 assuming no difference in phase, without claiming to have any satisfactory explanation for it. Least unlikely, perhaps, are currents in the Earth's fluid core that change both its moment of inertia (affecting LOD) and the circumstances in which the Earth-based experiments measure G. In this case, there might be correlations with terrestrial-magnetic-field measurements.

Do you accept this evidence that the mass of the planet isn't constant? If not, what is varying exactly?

Aardwolf wrote:Do you accept this evidence that the mass of the planet isn't constant? If not, what is varying exactly?

I have no idea, but you are right that its and interesting anomaly.

BTW, the reason for talking about GR is that one of its base assumptions is that inertial and gravitational acceleration frames cannot be told apart; that is that gravity is mass based. So any test that GR passes helps support that case. I know Pound-Rebka does not address that directly.

I still don't know why you connect GR with dark matter? Dark matter is that galaxies rotate at the wrong speed given the matter we think we can see, so there was a postulation that there must be some dark stuff we can't see, but that has mass. Dark energy is the cosmological constant from GR. Its dark energy and GR that are connected.

The gravitational accelerations of around galaxies are very small, so Newtons laws can be used to model them. GR only differs from Newtons laws when the accelerations are large. So the dark matter issue arising from galaxies rotating at the wrong speed doesn't relate to GR. If there is something wrong with our model of gravity, its at the small end not the big end. This is where ideas like modified Newtons laws come in (with a parameter you can tune to fit the data, no less), and wacky shit like MiHSC.

Aardwolf wrote:Do you accept this evidence that the mass of the planet isn't constant? If not, what is varying exactly?

I have no idea, but you are right that its and interesting anomaly.

It’s far beyond an anomaly. Analysis of 40 years of specialised laboratory experiments designed specifically to identify a constant value of G has failed. That’s not an anomaly, it’s probably the clearest evidence of the failure of a theory ever witnessed. Either “constant” G is varying or the mass of the planet is, and considering that G is merely an abstract term driven by gravity itself, in reality the mass of the planet must be varying. There is no other interpretation available. Unless all the scientists involved were incompetent on a sinusoidal basis over multiple sites/decades.

willendure wrote:BTW, the reason for talking about GR is that one of its base assumptions is that inertial and gravitational acceleration frames cannot be told apart; that is that gravity is mass based. So any test that GR passes helps support that case. I know Pound-Rebka does not address that directly.

A base assumption that it’s comparable to an acceleration does not exclude other causes of gravity. The theoretical formula have no requirement that gravity = mass. It isn’t driven by mass it’s driven by observation and the mathematical description of the forces assumed to drive them.

willendure wrote:I still don't know why you connect GR with dark matter? Dark matter is that galaxies rotate at the wrong speed given the matter we think we can see, so there was a postulation that there must be some dark stuff we can't see, but that has mass. Dark energy is the cosmological constant from GR. Its dark energy and GR that are connected.

Again, you introduced GR. I’ll happily drop but you keep introducing as if it answers my points/questions.

willendure wrote:The gravitational accelerations of around galaxies are very small, so Newtons laws can be used to model them. GR only differs from Newtons laws when the accelerations are large. So the dark matter issue arising from galaxies rotating at the wrong speed doesn't relate to GR. If there is something wrong with our model of gravity, its at the small end not the big end. This is where ideas like modified Newtons laws come in (with a parameter you can tune to fit the data, no less), and wacky shit like MiHSC.

Good. Then drop GR, I had no interest in it anyway. Just find me an experiment that proves gravity is mass based. After all, as you said, we must abandon theories that can be disproven in a lab, so let’s analyse where mass based gravity has succeeded.

willendure wrote:Let's see what happens when they measure G in space.

Unfortunately we’ll probably be dead before that’s possible, because we need at least as many years as we’ve already studied G to prove if it’s constant. Then again of course, you might just say it’s an anomaly so what’s the point. Maybe not being able to levitate a charged foil is an anomaly. You see we can all avoid evidence and write off as an anomaly when it doesn't fit our expectations.

Aardwolf wrote:It’s far beyond an anomaly. Analysis of 40 years of specialised laboratory experiments designed specifically to identify a constant value of G has failed. That’s not an anomaly, it’s probably the clearest evidence of the failure of a theory ever witnessed. Either “constant” G is varying or the mass of the planet is, and considering that G is merely an abstract term driven by gravity itself, in reality the mass of the planet must be varying. There is no other interpretation available. Unless all the scientists involved were incompetent on a sinusoidal basis over multiple sites/decades.

These experiments to measure G don't measure the mass of the planet. They take weights of known mass, and measure the gravitational attraction between them. Note that in the Cavendish experiment the set up is arranged horizontally, at right angles to the effect of earths gravity on the masses. Really, the mass of the planet should have no bearing at all on the result.

I would not be so quick to claim that G varies with length of day. Yes, they data points fit quite well a 5.9 year sinusoid, the top graph here:

Aardwolf wrote:It’s far beyond an anomaly. Analysis of 40 years of specialised laboratory experiments designed specifically to identify a constant value of G has failed. That’s not an anomaly, it’s probably the clearest evidence of the failure of a theory ever witnessed. Either “constant” G is varying or the mass of the planet is, and considering that G is merely an abstract term driven by gravity itself, in reality the mass of the planet must be varying. There is no other interpretation available. Unless all the scientists involved were incompetent on a sinusoidal basis over multiple sites/decades.

These experiments to measure G don't measure the mass of the planet. They take weights of known mass, and measure the gravitational attraction between them. Note that in the Cavendish experiment the set up is arranged horizontally, at right angles to the effect of earths gravity on the masses. Really, the mass of the planet should have no bearing at all on the result.

Blatantly wrong, just look at the title of his paper;

Experiments to determine the density of the Earth

It specifically is designed to determine the mass of the planet it’s situated on. The torsion in the hanging wire provides a comparison of Earths pull compared to the pull of the large weights and from that you can calculate the mass of the Earth compared to the mass of the weights. That's all it does so a varying result can only mean a varying Earth or a varying weight and I would assume they checked the weight of the ball in the experiment for consistency, which just leaves the Earth. You need to understand the experiment before you make unsubstantiated claims.

willendure wrote:I would not be so quick to claim that G varies with length of day. Yes, they data points fit quite well a 5.9 year sinusoid, the top graph here:

But when you put them on the real LOD graph, the second graph in the link above, they look a lot less correlated.

Perhaps there are other systematic errors in these experiments that have been overlooked, and the error bars are simply bigger than we think.

I’m not interested in it’s correlation with the LOD, that’s just an interesting aside (because they are obviously both affected by the electromagnetic environment of the solar system together with the solar cycle etc.). The fact remains that G is following a predictable sine wave. That’s a clear fail for mass based gravity unless the mass is varying and the chance that these are just errors over 40 years and are following a PREDICTABLE pattern is ridiculous.

Anyway, you said there were loads of mass proving experiments we can use to validate the theory. Where are they? If you can’t produce any I hope you are still championing your mantra;

willendure wrote:form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong

You haven’t produced any passed tests so by your own words, the idea is wrong. Although it's obvious you're just making excuses for it even though I thought your philosophy regarding experiments was supposedly clear.

Aardwolf wrote:Anyway, you said there were loads of mass proving experiments we can use to validate the theory. Where are they? If you can’t produce any I hope you are still championing your mantra;

I did not. In fact I said that there aren't any. I also said there aren't any that disprove it. Beyond some hand waving about quantum gravity, we have no idea of what the underlying mechanism that causes gravity might be.

I also said that its easy to set up an experiment to disprove Thornhill's hypothesis.

willendure wrote:I also said that its easy to set up an experiment to disprove Thornhill's hypothesis.

You haven't quantified any of the details of how this would work however it's still not as easy as disproving mass based gravity.

Let us quantify it then.

If, as Thornhill claims, gravity is the result of a dipole, then that is saying that it is really just an electrical field. An electrical field that can slightly distort the position of the nucleus within the atoms, such that an object within such a field will form a dipole and experience a force of attraction to the larger body that is creating the field.

There is an electrical field here on the surface of the Earth, of about +100V per meter above the ground. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html. We can measure that, and we see no other comparably electrical fields, so that must be the illusive Thornhill field that we are looking for.

Already, Feynman gives us a simple experiment. If you look at Fig 9.2 from the lecture linked above: (b) If the plate is covered with a grounded conductor it will have no surface charge. We simply take 2 metal plates, one grounded with a wire and suspended over the other one. As the other is now shielded, it is no longer sitting in a voltage gradient. Under Thornill's model, it should now weigh nothing.

Experiment 1: Set up the arrangement as per Fig 9.2., with a set of scales to measure weight underneath the shielded metal plate. Connect the upper plate to ground, check that its weight falls to zero.

"Thornhill's gravity model", was proposed by the deceased Norwegian physicist Ralph Sansbury 1996, at about the same time as the introduction of Coulomb Dipole Gravity by Bengt E Nyman. The Sansbury model was very preliminary with obvious problems in the area of for example multi body gravity. For a more complete treatment including the basics of Coulomb Dipole Gravity, multi body gravity, known deuterium binding energy versus that calculated using Coulomb Dipole Gravity, and known GPS clock timing compared to that calculated using Coulomb Dipole Gravity, see http://www.Dipole.se.

willendure wrote:If the plate is covered with a grounded conductor it will have no surface charge.

Please explain why you believe that shielding against the surface charge on an object will offset the weight of the entire object? Also, how are you going to isolate the attraction between the charged plate and neutral plate so you know what exactly which forces are acting on the neutral plate?

willendure wrote:If the plate is covered with a grounded conductor it will have no surface charge.

Please explain why you believe that shielding against the surface charge on an object will offset the weight of the entire object? Also, how are you going to isolate the attraction between the charged plate and neutral plate so you know what exactly which forces are acting on the neutral plate?

None of the plates have any charge. The plate is a conductor, so the charge equalizes all through it, so no surface charge = no charge on the plate at all. The grounded plate being grounded, also has no charge.

I don't believe shielding the plate will offset its weight, because its weight is due to gravity, which is not the same thing as electrical attraction.

If you really believe Thornhill's nonsense, you need to explain how it works.

willendure wrote:If the plate is covered with a grounded conductor it will have no surface charge.

Please explain why you believe that shielding against the surface charge on an object will offset the weight of the entire object? Also, how are you going to isolate the attraction between the charged plate and neutral plate so you know what exactly which forces are acting on the neutral plate?

None of the plates have any charge. The plate is a conductor, so the charge equalizes all through it, so no surface charge = no charge on the plate at all. The grounded plate being grounded, also has no charge.

So what the hell did you bring it up for? What is the experiment you referenced from Feynman supposed to be doing?

willendure wrote:I don't believe shielding the plate will offset its weight, because its weight is due to gravity, which is not the same thing as electrical attraction.

Exactly. It has to be belief because every test/observation has failed mass based gravity. Funny that, from someone who was previously adamant that a failed test should result in admission the theory is wrong.

willendure wrote:If you really believe Thornhill's nonsense, you need to explain how it works.

So, if you admit you don't know how it works, how can you possibly devise an "easy" test to disprove it.

willendure wrote:None of the plates have any charge. The plate is a conductor, so the charge equalizes all through it, so no surface charge = no charge on the plate at all. The grounded plate being grounded, also has no charge.

This is also a misrepresentation of the experiment which is probably why you misunderstand what it's doing. Feynman clearly states;